Modulation Dynamics in the Orofacial Sensorimotor Cortex during Motor Skill Acquisition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The orofacial sensorimotor cortex is known to play a role in motor learning. However, how motor learning changes the dynamics of neuronal activity and whether these changes differ between orofacial primary motor (MIo) and somatosensory (SIo) cortices remain unknown. To address these questions, we used chronically implanted microelectrode arrays to track learning-induced changes in the activity of simultaneously recorded neurons in MIo and SIo as two naive monkeys (Macaca mulatta) were trained in a novel tongue-protrusion task. Over a period of 8-12 d, the monkeys showed behavioral improvements in task performance that were accompanied by rapid and long-lasting changes in neuronal responses in MIo and SIo occurring in parallel: (1) increases in the proportion of task-modulated neurons, (2) increases in the mutual information between tongue-protrusive force and spiking activity, (3) reductions in the across-trial firing rate variability, and (4) transient increases in coherent firing of neuronal pairs. More importantly, the time-resolved mutual information in MIo and SIo exhibited temporal alignment. While showing parallel changes, MIo neurons exhibited a bimodal distribution of peak correlation lag times between spiking activity and force, whereas SIo neurons showed a unimodal distribution. Moreover, coherent activity between pairs of MIo neurons was higher and centered around force onset compared with pairwise coherence of SIo neurons. Overall, the results suggest that the neuroplasticity in MIo and SIo occurring in parallel serves as a substrate for linking sensation and movement during sensorimotor learning, whereas the differing dynamic organizations reflect specific ways to control movement parameters as learning progresses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".